Networking ME and XP

[jhebron]

I am running ME and XP and I can't get them to share files. I am running a
Linysys cable modem and Linksys router. I can get the Internet on both
computers no problem, they just wont see each other to share files and
printers. Is the firewall in XP Service Pak 2 stopping them from anything.
I also have Norton Security and Anti-virus on each computer. Any help would
be greatly appreciated.

[JAD]

if you got as far as the FW settings in XP, you should have seen that when
enabled it will stop sharing in most caeses. Especially when using the same
nic to access the internet and the lan


"jhebron" > wrote in message
news:fz0ad.363941$Fg5.194989@attbi_s53...
> I am running ME and XP and I can't get them to share files. I am running
a
> Linysys cable modem and Linksys router. I can get the Internet on both
> computers no problem, they just wont see each other to share files and
> printers. Is the firewall in XP Service Pak 2 stopping them from
anything.
> I also have Norton Security and Anti-virus on each computer. Any help
would
> be greatly appreciated.
>
>

[Steve Winograd [MVP]]

In article <fz0ad.363941$Fg5.194989@attbi_s53>, "jhebron"
> wrote:
>I am running ME and XP and I can't get them to share files. I am running a
>Linysys cable modem and Linksys router. I can get the Internet on both
>computers no problem, they just wont see each other to share files and
>printers. Is the firewall in XP Service Pak 2 stopping them from anything.
>I also have Norton Security and Anti-virus on each computer. Any help would
>be greatly appreciated.

If the XP computer is running Norton Internet Security, you must
disable the built-in Windows Firewall. Running both of them will
cause network problems.

Configure Norton to allow access by other computers on the local area
network.
--
Best Wishes,
Steve Winograd, MS-MVP (Windows Networking)

Please post any reply as a follow-up message in the news group
for everyone to see. I'm sorry, but I don't answer questions
addressed directly to me in E-mail or news groups.

Microsoft Most Valuable Professional - Windows Networking
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com

Steve Winograd's Networking FAQ
http://www.bcmaven.com/networking/faq.htm

[Steve Winograd [MVP]]

In article >, "JAD"
> wrote:
>> I am running ME and XP and I can't get them to share files. I am running
>a
>> Linysys cable modem and Linksys router. I can get the Internet on both
>> computers no problem, they just wont see each other to share files and
>> printers. Is the firewall in XP Service Pak 2 stopping them from
>anything.
>> I also have Norton Security and Anti-virus on each computer. Any help
>would
>> be greatly appreciated.
>
>if you got as far as the FW settings in XP, you should have seen that when
>enabled it will stop sharing in most caeses. Especially when using the same
>nic to access the internet and the lan

The Windows Firewall in XP Service Pack 2 is designed to allow file
and printer sharing on the local area network. This is different than
the Internet Connection Firewall in earlier versions of XP.

In the Windows Firewall properties, click the General tab and set the
mode to "On (recommended)". Then, click the Exceptions tab and make
sure that there's a check mark in the box for File and Printer
Sharing.
--
Best Wishes,
Steve Winograd, MS-MVP (Windows Networking)

Please post any reply as a follow-up message in the news group
for everyone to see. I'm sorry, but I don't answer questions
addressed directly to me in E-mail or news groups.

Microsoft Most Valuable Professional - Windows Networking
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com

Steve Winograd's Networking FAQ
http://www.bcmaven.com/networking/faq.htm

[N. Miller]

In article >, JAD says...

> "jhebron" > wrote in message
> news:fz0ad.363941$Fg5.194989@attbi_s53...

> > I am running ME and XP and I can't get them to share files. I am running
> > a Linysys cable modem and Linksys router. I can get the Internet on both
> > computers no problem, they just wont see each other to share files and
> > printers. Is the firewall in XP Service Pak 2 stopping them from
> > anything. I also have Norton Security and Anti-virus on each computer.
> > Any help would be greatly appreciated.

> if you got as far as the FW settings in XP, you should have seen that when
> enabled it will stop sharing in most caeses. Especially when using the same
> nic to access the internet and the lan

You can't use the same NIC to access the Internet that you use to access the
LAN when you are behind a router. The router sits between the NIC and the
Internet; the NIC can only access the router.

--
Norman
~Win dain a lotica, En vai tu ri, Si lo ta
~Fin dein a loluca, En dragu a sei lain
~Vi fa-ru les shutai am, En riga-lint

[N. Miller]

In article >, Z says...

> Steve Winograd [MVP] wrote:

> > If the XP computer is running Norton Internet Security, you must
> > disable the built-in Windows Firewall. Running both of them will
> > cause network problems.

> > Configure Norton to allow access by other computers on the local area
> > network.

> Geez, even better ... if you have XP SP2, dump Norton Internet
> Security completely.

Does NIS not block outbound traffic? Windows Firewall, the Windows XP SP2
firewall application does not stop outbound traffic. Between Windows
Firewall and a third party firewall, I would only choose Windows Firewall if
the third party firewall didn't do more than Windows Firewall.

Admittedly, though, there are about a half dozen excellent free software
firewalls which outperform both WF and NIS. One of them is an ancient one
which I still use: Kerio Personal Firewall 2.1.5.

--
Norman
~Win dain a lotica, En vai tu ri, Si lo ta
~Fin dein a loluca, En dragu a sei lain
~Vi fa-ru les shutai am, En riga-lint

[Steve Winograd [MVP]]

In article >, N.
Miller > wrote:
>> > I am running ME and XP and I can't get them to share files. I am running
>> > a Linysys cable modem and Linksys router. I can get the Internet on both
>> > computers no problem, they just wont see each other to share files and
>> > printers. Is the firewall in XP Service Pak 2 stopping them from
>> > anything. I also have Norton Security and Anti-virus on each computer.
>> > Any help would be greatly appreciated.
>
>> if you got as far as the FW settings in XP, you should have seen that when
>> enabled it will stop sharing in most caeses. Especially when using the same
>> nic to access the internet and the lan
>
>You can't use the same NIC to access the Internet that you use to access the
>LAN when you are behind a router.

Yes, you can.

>The router sits between the NIC and the
>Internet; the NIC can only access the router.

The NIC accesses the router, and the router gives it access to both
the Internet and the LAN.


Did I misunderstand what you said?
--
Best Wishes,
Steve Winograd, MS-MVP (Windows Networking)

Please post any reply as a follow-up message in the news group
for everyone to see. I'm sorry, but I don't answer questions
addressed directly to me in E-mail or news groups.

Microsoft Most Valuable Professional - Windows Networking
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com

Steve Winograd's Networking FAQ
http://www.bcmaven.com/networking/faq.htm

[Noel Paton]

I also use Kerio 2.1.5 - as well as the WF (at least that way I only have to
worry about outbound traffic!<g>)

--
Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2005, Windows)

Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm
http://tinyurl.com/6oztj

Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's

"N. Miller" > wrote in message
om...
> Admittedly, though, there are about a half dozen excellent free software
> firewalls which outperform both WF and NIS. One of them is an ancient one
> which I still use: Kerio Personal Firewall 2.1.5.
>
> --
> Norman
> ~Win dain a lotica, En vai tu ri, Si lo ta
> ~Fin dein a loluca, En dragu a sei lain
> ~Vi fa-ru les shutai am, En riga-lint

[Steve Winograd [MVP]]

In article >, "Noel Paton"
> wrote:
>> Admittedly, though, there are about a half dozen excellent free software
>> firewalls which outperform both WF and NIS. One of them is an ancient one
>> which I still use: Kerio Personal Firewall 2.1.5.
>
>I also use Kerio 2.1.5 - as well as the WF (at least that way I only have to
>worry about outbound traffic!<g>)

Hi, Noel. Do you use Kerio and Windows Firewall at the same time? If
so, why? I don't think that it gives more protection than using just
Kerio, and Microsoft says that it can cause problems.

XP Service Pack2 has a Help and Support topic ("Why you should only
use one firewall") that says "Two firewalls turned on at the same time
can cause compatibility problems that result in some programs not
working correctly."

If you enable Windows Firewall and then install a recent firewall
program, like Kerio Personal Firewall 4, the Windows Security Center
automatically gives a warning message and points to that Help and
Support topic.
--
Best Wishes,
Steve Winograd, MS-MVP (Windows Networking)

Please post any reply as a follow-up message in the news group
for everyone to see. I'm sorry, but I don't answer questions
addressed directly to me in E-mail or news groups.

Microsoft Most Valuable Professional - Windows Networking
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com

Steve Winograd's Networking FAQ
http://www.bcmaven.com/networking/faq.htm

[Noel Paton]

I've had absolutely no problems running both in tandem, Steve.
Note that the version of Kerio I'm running is an old one (2.1.5), so isn't
as pervasive as the more recent v4.

Basically, I don't trust myself not to do stupid things, and the WF helps me
keep clean <g> - and Kerio I use to check what's actually going out from my
PC, in case I screw up.

I make the (probably false) assumption that Kerio will alert me if anything
new is trying to access the real world, and I can then backtrack to find out
WTF is happening.

I've had no issues between the two whatever - I can't even recall if Kerio
came up with the usual 'changed versions' warning after installing XP
(during which both Kerio and AVG were live and operating, BTW), but ASSume
that it must have.



--
Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2005, Windows)

Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm
http://tinyurl.com/6oztj

Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's

"Steve Winograd [MVP]" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Noel Paton"
> > wrote:
>>> Admittedly, though, there are about a half dozen excellent free software
>>> firewalls which outperform both WF and NIS. One of them is an ancient
>>> one
>>> which I still use: Kerio Personal Firewall 2.1.5.
>>
>>I also use Kerio 2.1.5 - as well as the WF (at least that way I only have
>>to
>>worry about outbound traffic!<g>)
>
> Hi, Noel. Do you use Kerio and Windows Firewall at the same time? If
> so, why? I don't think that it gives more protection than using just
> Kerio, and Microsoft says that it can cause problems.
>
> XP Service Pack2 has a Help and Support topic ("Why you should only
> use one firewall") that says "Two firewalls turned on at the same time
> can cause compatibility problems that result in some programs not
> working correctly."
>
> If you enable Windows Firewall and then install a recent firewall
> program, like Kerio Personal Firewall 4, the Windows Security Center
> automatically gives a warning message and points to that Help and
> Support topic.
> --
> Best Wishes,
> Steve Winograd, MS-MVP (Windows Networking)
>
> Please post any reply as a follow-up message in the news group
> for everyone to see. I'm sorry, but I don't answer questions
> addressed directly to me in E-mail or news groups.
>
> Microsoft Most Valuable Professional - Windows Networking
> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com
>
> Steve Winograd's Networking FAQ
> http://www.bcmaven.com/networking/faq.htm

[James Egan]

On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 21:10:16 -0600, "Steve Winograd [MVP]"
> wrote:

>In the Windows Firewall properties, click the General tab and set the
>mode to "On (recommended)". Then, click the Exceptions tab and make
>sure that there's a check mark in the box for File and Printer
>Sharing.

On my network here, I had to do this to get a LAN connection even
though LAN was unchecked on the advanced tab.

I was wanting to enable the firewall only for the dialup interface (a
standby Internet connection) but not for the LAN which is already
private behind a router.

If I leave the advanced tab with just the dialup checked, I can kiss
goodbye to LAN connectivity unless I either disable the firewall
completely on all interfaces or make file and printer sharing an
exception on a (supposedly) already disabled interface. Surely I
shouldn't need to do that?


Jim.

[Mark Lloyd]

On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 15:48:35 +0100, James Egan >
wrote:

>On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 21:10:16 -0600, "Steve Winograd [MVP]"
> wrote:
>
>>In the Windows Firewall properties, click the General tab and set the
>>mode to "On (recommended)". Then, click the Exceptions tab and make
>>sure that there's a check mark in the box for File and Printer
>>Sharing.
>
>On my network here, I had to do this to get a LAN connection even
>though LAN was unchecked on the advanced tab.
>
>I was wanting to enable the firewall only for the dialup interface (a
>standby Internet connection) but not for the LAN which is already
>private behind a router.
>

It's better to have a software firewall, even with a router. Consider
what happens with OUTGOING connections, such as those from spyware.

>If I leave the advanced tab with just the dialup checked, I can kiss
>goodbye to LAN connectivity unless I either disable the firewall
>completely on all interfaces or make file and printer sharing an
>exception on a (supposedly) already disabled interface. Surely I
>shouldn't need to do that?
>
>
>Jim.

Still, I would never trust the XP firewall. MS is going to put in all
the "holes" it wants.

--
76 days until the winter solstice celebration

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

[Tony]

On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 22:18:03 -0700, Z > wrote:

>Steve Winograd [MVP] wrote:
>> If the XP computer is running Norton Internet Security, you must
>> disable the built-in Windows Firewall. Running both of them will
>> cause network problems.
>>
>> Configure Norton to allow access by other computers on the local area
>> network.
>
>Geez, even better ... if you have XP SP2, dump Norton Internet
>Security completely.

Or ,even better than that ... turn off the (nearly useless) XP
firewall and use Norton.

[Steve Winograd [MVP]]

In article >, Tony
<dont@email> wrote:
>On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 22:18:03 -0700, Z > wrote:
>
>>Steve Winograd [MVP] wrote:
>>> If the XP computer is running Norton Internet Security, you must
>>> disable the built-in Windows Firewall. Running both of them will
>>> cause network problems.
>>>
>>> Configure Norton to allow access by other computers on the local area
>>> network.
>>
>>Geez, even better ... if you have XP SP2, dump Norton Internet
>>Security completely.
>
>Or ,even better than that ... turn off the (nearly useless) XP
>firewall and use Norton.

Have you looked at the new Windows Firewall in Service Pack 2? It's
much better than the Internet Connection Firewall in earlier versions
of Windows XP.
--
Best Wishes,
Steve Winograd, MS-MVP (Windows Networking)

Please post any reply as a follow-up message in the news group
for everyone to see. I'm sorry, but I don't answer questions
addressed directly to me in E-mail or news groups.

Microsoft Most Valuable Professional - Windows Networking
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com

Steve Winograd's Networking FAQ
http://www.bcmaven.com/networking/faq.htm

[Mark Lloyd]

On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 12:49:35 -0600, "Steve Winograd [MVP]"
> wrote:

>In article >, Tony
><dont@email> wrote:
>>On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 22:18:03 -0700, Z > wrote:
>>
>>>Steve Winograd [MVP] wrote:
>>>> If the XP computer is running Norton Internet Security, you must
>>>> disable the built-in Windows Firewall. Running both of them will
>>>> cause network problems.
>>>>
>>>> Configure Norton to allow access by other computers on the local area
>>>> network.
>>>
>>>Geez, even better ... if you have XP SP2, dump Norton Internet
>>>Security completely.
>>
>>Or ,even better than that ... turn off the (nearly useless) XP
>>firewall and use Norton.
>
>Have you looked at the new Windows Firewall in Service Pack 2? It's
>much better than the Internet Connection Firewall in earlier versions
>of Windows XP.

Irrelevant. It's still a bad idea to trust MS here. A lot of the
undesirable connections are originated by Windows.

--
76 days until the winter solstice celebration

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

[Steve Winograd [MVP]]

In article >, James Egan
> wrote:
>On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 21:10:16 -0600, "Steve Winograd [MVP]"
> wrote:
>>In the Windows Firewall properties, click the General tab and set the
>>mode to "On (recommended)". Then, click the Exceptions tab and make
>>sure that there's a check mark in the box for File and Printer
>>Sharing.
>
>On my network here, I had to do this to get a LAN connection even
>though LAN was unchecked on the advanced tab.
>
>I was wanting to enable the firewall only for the dialup interface (a
>standby Internet connection) but not for the LAN which is already
>private behind a router.
>
>If I leave the advanced tab with just the dialup checked, I can kiss
>goodbye to LAN connectivity unless I either disable the firewall
>completely on all interfaces or make file and printer sharing an
>exception on a (supposedly) already disabled interface. Surely I
>shouldn't need to do that?
>
>
>Jim.

Jim, make sure that "Don't allow exceptions" is un-checked on the
General tab. That's an all-or-nothing setting. If it's checked, all
connections are firewalled, regardless of the settings on the Advanced
tab.

To enable the firewall on the dial-up connection and disable the
firewall on the LAN connection:

1. Go to the Exceptions tab.
2. Un-check all of the boxes.
3. Go to the Advanced tab.
4. Check the dial-up connection and un-check the LAN connection.
--
Best Wishes,
Steve Winograd, MS-MVP (Windows Networking)

Please post any reply as a follow-up message in the news group
for everyone to see. I'm sorry, but I don't answer questions
addressed directly to me in E-mail or news groups.

Microsoft Most Valuable Professional - Windows Networking
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com

Steve Winograd's Networking FAQ
http://www.bcmaven.com/networking/faq.htm

[James Egan]

On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 15:47:35 -0600, "Steve Winograd [MVP]"
> wrote:

>Jim, make sure that "Don't allow exceptions" is un-checked on the
>General tab. That's an all-or-nothing setting. If it's checked, all
>connections are firewalled, regardless of the settings on the Advanced
>tab.
>

This is unchecked.

>To enable the firewall on the dial-up connection and disable the
>firewall on the LAN connection:
>
>1. Go to the Exceptions tab.
>2. Un-check all of the boxes.
>3. Go to the Advanced tab.
>4. Check the dial-up connection and un-check the LAN connection.

It doesn't work doing this, Steve. Even after restoring defaults,
starting again and following your instructions to the letter.

If file and printer sharing (exceptions) is unchecked, I can't even
ping the computer. As soon as I tick this box and click ok it all
works. Pinging, browsing et al.

That's no use for the dialup connection, though, since file and
printer sharing is the main thing I want to block on that interface.


Jim.

[N. Miller]

In article >, Steve Winograd
[MVP] says...

> >You can't use the same NIC to access the Internet that you use to access the
> >LAN when you are behind a router.

> Yes, you can.

> >The router sits between the NIC and the
> >Internet; the NIC can only access the router.

> The NIC accesses the router, and the router gives it access to both
> the Internet and the LAN.

> Did I misunderstand what you said?

Probably. The NIC in the computer can only access the router. The router
uses NAT to pass packets between the WAN port of the router and the LAN port
of the router, which is connected to the NIC in the computer. Nobody on the
WAN side of the router can have direct access to the NIC.

Take my rig as a case in point. My NIC can directly access the gateway IP
address at 192.168.102.1. It can't directly access anything beyond that IP
address; that is the job of the NAT function in the router. While NAT is a
transparent function, it does isolate the NIC from the Internet.

Going the other way, you can directly access my router at 64.174.90.87, but
not my NIC; not unless I have forwarded a port to my computer. Again, the
NAT function of the router isolates the networks.

--
Norman
~Win dain a lotica, En vai tu ri, Si lo ta
~Fin dein a loluca, En dragu a sei lain
~Vi fa-ru les shutai am, En riga-lint

[N. Miller]

In article >, Mark Lloyd says...

> It's better to have a software firewall, even with a router. Consider
> what happens with OUTGOING connections, such as those from spyware.

At which the Windows Firewall is as useless as the proverbial screen door on
the submarine. Get a software firewall which is designed to control outbound
connections, and disable the Windows firewall entirely, if that is your
intent.

--
Norman
~Win dain a lotica, En vai tu ri, Si lo ta
~Fin dein a loluca, En dragu a sei lain
~Vi fa-ru les shutai am, En riga-lint

[N. Miller]

In article >, Steve Winograd
[MVP] says...

> Have you looked at the new Windows Firewall in Service Pack 2? It's
> much better than the Internet Connection Firewall in earlier versions
> of Windows XP.

If NIS can control outbound connections, it is better to keep NIS and
disable Windows Firewall. Whatever improvements MSFT made in Windows
Firewall over Internet Connection Firewall, they did not add outbound
control of connections.

--
Norman
~Win dain a lotica, En vai tu ri, Si lo ta
~Fin dein a loluca, En dragu a sei lain
~Vi fa-ru les shutai am, En riga-lint

[N. Miller]

In article >, Noel Paton says...

> I also use Kerio 2.1.5 - as well as the WF (at least that way I only have to
> worry about outbound traffic!<g>)

I would not. Indeed, I only keep KPF 2.1.5 for some odd outbound connections
that I want control over. My Netgear FR114P includes SPI filters which act
as a firewall, both on inbound, and on outbound connections; but not by
application on the individual computer.

--
Norman
~Win dain a lotica, En vai tu ri, Si lo ta
~Fin dein a loluca, En dragu a sei lain
~Vi fa-ru les shutai am, En riga-lint

[Steve Winograd [MVP]]

In article >, N.
Miller > wrote:
>In article >, Steve Winograd
>[MVP] says...
>
>> >You can't use the same NIC to access the Internet that you use to access the
>> >LAN when you are behind a router.
>
>> Yes, you can.
>
>> >The router sits between the NIC and the
>> >Internet; the NIC can only access the router.
>
>> The NIC accesses the router, and the router gives it access to both
>> the Internet and the LAN.
>
>> Did I misunderstand what you said?
>
>Probably. The NIC in the computer can only access the router. The router
>uses NAT to pass packets between the WAN port of the router and the LAN port
>of the router, which is connected to the NIC in the computer. Nobody on the
>WAN side of the router can have direct access to the NIC.
>
>Take my rig as a case in point. My NIC can directly access the gateway IP
>address at 192.168.102.1. It can't directly access anything beyond that IP
>address; that is the job of the NAT function in the router. While NAT is a
>transparent function, it does isolate the NIC from the Internet.
>
>Going the other way, you can directly access my router at 64.174.90.87, but
>not my NIC; not unless I have forwarded a port to my computer. Again, the
>NAT function of the router isolates the networks.

I'm still not sure that I understand your point.

You can indeed use the same NIC to access the Internet that you use to
access the LAN when you are behind the router. By that, I mean that
the computer's NIC, when connected to the router, can access other
computers on the LAN, and it can also access sites on the Internet.
The fact that Internet access passes through the router's WAN
interface and NAT program before it reaches the NIC is irrelevant.

Other computers on the LAN can access your NIC. Other people on the
Internet can't access your NIC, because the router's NAT function acts
as a firewall.

Do we agree on those points?
--
Best Wishes,
Steve Winograd, MS-MVP (Windows Networking)

Please post any reply as a follow-up message in the news group
for everyone to see. I'm sorry, but I don't answer questions
addressed directly to me in E-mail or news groups.

Microsoft Most Valuable Professional - Windows Networking
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com

Steve Winograd's Networking FAQ
http://www.bcmaven.com/networking/faq.htm

[James Egan]

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 22:41:20 -0700, N. Miller
> wrote:

>> It's better to have a software firewall, even with a router. Consider
>> what happens with OUTGOING connections, such as those from spyware.
>
>At which the Windows Firewall is as useless as the proverbial screen door on
>the submarine. Get a software firewall which is designed to control outbound
>connections, and disable the Windows firewall entirely, if that is your
>intent.

I'm not worried about outbound connections. I just want something to
simply block connections to (winxp) open ports on a dialup interface
whilst not taking over the machine.

I'm not going to install a resource hog to protect a connection I
might only use once every few months. Had it been win9x or winme I
would have just unbound file and printer sharing from tcp/ip and not
bothered with a firewall at all but with winxp it appears to be a
little more troublesome with remote procedure calls and all that so a
simple firewall looks the way to go.

Is it possible to revert to the old winxp firewall? That was fine for
blocking on the diakup connection without affecting the LAN.


Jim.

[Noel Paton]

The WF does a very good job of blocking inbound traffic - look here for
details
Using programs and hardware with Service Pack 2

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=fh;ln;xpsp2swhw

Some programs seem to stop working after you install Windows XP Service

Pack 2

http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=842242

Programs that may behave differently in Windows XP Service Pack 2

http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=884130

Troubleshooting Windows Firewall Settings in WinXP SP2

http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=875357

More MS references: http://forum.aumha.org/viewforum.php?f=44

(with apoloogies to PABear)
--
Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2005, Windows)


Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm
http://tinyurl.com/6oztj

Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's

"James Egan" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 22:41:20 -0700, N. Miller
> > wrote:
>
>>> It's better to have a software firewall, even with a router. Consider
>>> what happens with OUTGOING connections, such as those from spyware.
>>
>>At which the Windows Firewall is as useless as the proverbial screen door
>>on
>>the submarine. Get a software firewall which is designed to control
>>outbound
>>connections, and disable the Windows firewall entirely, if that is your
>>intent.
>
> I'm not worried about outbound connections. I just want something to
> simply block connections to (winxp) open ports on a dialup interface
> whilst not taking over the machine.
>
> I'm not going to install a resource hog to protect a connection I
> might only use once every few months. Had it been win9x or winme I
> would have just unbound file and printer sharing from tcp/ip and not
> bothered with a firewall at all but with winxp it appears to be a
> little more troublesome with remote procedure calls and all that so a
> simple firewall looks the way to go.
>
> Is it possible to revert to the old winxp firewall? That was fine for
> blocking on the diakup connection without affecting the LAN.
>
>
> Jim.
>
>
>

[James Egan]

On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 15:47:35 -0600, "Steve Winograd [MVP]"
> wrote:


>
>1. Go to the Exceptions tab.
>2. Un-check all of the boxes.
>3. Go to the Advanced tab.
>4. Check the dial-up connection and un-check the LAN connection.

I've resolved the problem but I don't know what was the cause.

I system restored to a point prior to installing sp2 and then
re-installed sp2. Now the firewall is behaving in the manner you
posted. Strange that isn't it? Looks like sp2 is as prone to silent
failure as some of the earlier patches.



Jim.

[Fred Marshall]

Make sure that the ME computer doesn't have NetBEUI or IPX installed
(network protocols).
If it does, get rid of them on all the computers.
TCP/IP is not only "enough" it is often necessary that it be "alone".

You must have the same protocol working for file sharing, etc.
From experience, I believe that installing NetBEUI on an ME machine (that
already has TCP/IP) will cause an XP machine with only TCP/IP installed to
disappear from the ME machine's network neighborhood. It's as if NetBEUI
has taken priority for being the protocol of choice and, since it doesn't
exist on the XP machine, can't share.
Removing NetBEUI is much preferable to having it installed all over the
place.

Fred

"jhebron" > wrote in message
news:fz0ad.363941$Fg5.194989@attbi_s53...
>I am running ME and XP and I can't get them to share files. I am running a
> Linysys cable modem and Linksys router. I can get the Internet on both
> computers no problem, they just wont see each other to share files and
> printers. Is the firewall in XP Service Pak 2 stopping them from
> anything.
> I also have Norton Security and Anti-virus on each computer. Any help
> would
> be greatly appreciated.
>
>

[N. Miller]

In article >, James Egan says...

> I'm not worried about outbound connections. I just want something to
> simply block connections to (winxp) open ports on a dialup interface
> whilst not taking over the machine.

> I'm not going to install a resource hog to protect a connection I
> might only use once every few months. Had it been win9x or winme I
> would have just unbound file and printer sharing from tcp/ip and not
> bothered with a firewall at all but with winxp it appears to be a
> little more troublesome with remote procedure calls and all that so a
> simple firewall looks the way to go.

> Is it possible to revert to the old winxp firewall? That was fine for
> blocking on the diakup connection without affecting the LAN.

Why? The SP2 Windows Firewall is at least as capable as the old ICF. You
just have to learn how to configure it.

--
Norman
~Win dain a lotica, En vai tu ri, Si lo ta
~Fin dein a loluca, En dragu a sei lain
~Vi fa-ru les shutai am, En riga-lint

[N. Miller]

In article >, Steve Winograd
[MVP] says...

> Other computers on the LAN can access your NIC. Other people on the
> Internet can't access your NIC, because the router's NAT function acts
> as a firewall.

That is because there is no direct connection between the NIC and the
Internet; but...

> Do we agree on those points?

Okay. I can agree to the fact that you can reach the Internet from your NIC.
Even if only through a transparent hardware proxy.

--
Norman
~Win dain a lotica, En vai tu ri, Si lo ta
~Fin dein a loluca, En dragu a sei lain
~Vi fa-ru les shutai am, En riga-lint

[James Egan]

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 20:00:33 -0700, N. Miller
> wrote:

>> Other computers on the LAN can access your NIC. Other people on the
>> Internet can't access your NIC, because the router's NAT function acts
>> as a firewall.
>
>That is because there is no direct connection between the NIC and the
>Internet; but...
>
>> Do we agree on those points?
>
>Okay. I can agree to the fact that you can reach the Internet from your NIC.
>Even if only through a transparent hardware proxy.

You've had three goes at it and you still haven't corrected or
clarified what you originally said.

The bottom line is you said you CAN'T "use the same NIC to access the
Internet that you use to access the LAN when you are behind a router"
when in fact you CAN.

Forget about transparent hardware proxies and such red herrings. The
Internet access facility is not in doubt with a single nic. Using the
same nic the computer can ALSO access and be accessed by other
machines on the LAN.


Jim.

[N. Miller]

In article >, James Egan says...

> You've had three goes at it and you still haven't corrected or
> clarified what you originally said.

Fine. I am a stupid idiot. I'll go hide in the corner and forget I even have
an Internet connection. Who needs it, anyway...

--
Norman
~Win dain a lotica, En vai tu ri, Si lo ta
~Fin dein a loluca, En dragu a sei lain
~Vi fa-ru les shutai am, En riga-lint

[Carey Holzman]

I know exactly what you feel like.

No good deed goes unpunished. We should start a club: People who get abused
in exchange for offering to help people for free.

Carey

"N. Miller" > wrote in message
om...
> In article >, James Egan
> says...
>
>> You've had three goes at it and you still haven't corrected or
>> clarified what you originally said.
>
> Fine. I am a stupid idiot. I'll go hide in the corner and forget I even
> have
> an Internet connection. Who needs it, anyway...
>
> --
> Norman
> ~Win dain a lotica, En vai tu ri, Si lo ta
> ~Fin dein a loluca, En dragu a sei lain
> ~Vi fa-ru les shutai am, En riga-lint

[N. Miller]

In article >, James Egan says...

> You've had three goes at it and you still haven't corrected or
> clarified what you originally said.

Okay, I will try it one more time. I suppose it all comes down to "access"
versus "connect". I was thinking "connect" when I wrote that. My NIC is not
connected directly to the Internet. Satisified?

--
Norman
~Win dain a lotica, En vai tu ri, Si lo ta
~Fin dein a loluca, En dragu a sei lain
~Vi fa-ru les shutai am, En riga-lint

[James Egan]

On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 20:16:38 -0700, N. Miller
> wrote:

>> You've had three goes at it and you still haven't corrected or
>> clarified what you originally said.
>
>Okay, I will try it one more time. I suppose it all comes down to "access"
>versus "connect". I was thinking "connect" when I wrote that. My NIC is not
>connected directly to the Internet. Satisified?

It's not really a matter of me being satisfied. The only reason I
commented in the first place was because the original poster was
wondering why his LAN connection wasn't working and your post (without
clarification) appeared to be telling him that the only way he was
going to communicate with his LAN was to add a second nic.

We both know he doesn't need to do that. "Satisfied" is getting to the
point where the original poster understands it.

As far as Carey's comments are concerned, he likes to wallow in self
pity and can't differentiate between constructive criticism and
trolling. Hopefully you can.


Jim.

[N. Miller]

In article >, James Egan says...

> It's not really a matter of me being satisfied. The only reason I
> commented in the first place was because the original poster was
> wondering why his LAN connection wasn't working and your post (without
> clarification) appeared to be telling him that the only way he was
> going to communicate with his LAN was to add a second nic.

> We both know he doesn't need to do that. "Satisfied" is getting to the
> point where the original poster understands it.

He only doesn't need a second NIC if he is using a shared ***connection***.
In the case of an Internet connected computer which will be a gateway, he
may need a second NIC; if the computer will be connecting to the Internet
via an Ethernet broadband modem, and sharing that connection with other
computers, a second NIC, for an Ethernet LAN, will be necessary (unless the
modem/HSI account has a provision to supply multiple WAN IP addresses).

But the whole thing centered on the difference between access and connect.
Behind a router, the NIC does not directly connect with the Internet, only
with the router (or gateway computer).

--
Norman
~Win dain a lotica, En vai tu ri, Si lo ta
~Fin dein a loluca, En dragu a sei lain
~Vi fa-ru les shutai am, En riga-lint

[Don Turner]

"Fred Marshall" > wrote in message >...
> Make sure that the ME computer doesn't have NetBEUI or IPX installed
> (network protocols).
> If it does, get rid of them on all the computers.
> TCP/IP is not only "enough" it is often necessary that it be "alone".
>
> You must have the same protocol working for file sharing, etc.
> From experience, I believe that installing NetBEUI on an ME machine (that
> already has TCP/IP) will cause an XP machine with only TCP/IP installed to
> disappear from the ME machine's network neighborhood. It's as if NetBEUI
> has taken priority for being the protocol of choice and, since it doesn't
> exist on the XP machine, can't share.
> Removing NetBEUI is much preferable to having it installed all over the
> place.
>
> Fred
>
> "jhebron" > wrote in message
> news:fz0ad.363941$Fg5.194989@attbi_s53...
> >I am running ME and XP and I can't get them to share files. I am running a
> > Linysys cable modem and Linksys router. I can get the Internet on both
> > computers no problem, they just wont see each other to share files and
> > printers. Is the firewall in XP Service Pak 2 stopping them from
> > anything.
> > I also have Norton Security and Anti-virus on each computer. Any help
> > would
> > be greatly appreciated.
> >
> >


I noticed no one mentioned the workgroup names on your network ideally
should be the same. Also enable netbios over TCP-IP on the XP box.
The Win ME workgroup name change can be done by rt clicking on network
places, select properties then identification. WinXP is similar ,
just click on the network ID button and you will find where to change
the workgp name. To enable Netbios on the XP box get into control
panel - select network, rt click on LAN connection , click on TCP-IP
- select properties. click the ADVANCED button select the WINS tab.
Near the bottom of this window is a tick to enable netbios.

Good luck

[Carey]

www.careyholzman.com/netfixes.htm

Carey

"Don Turner" > wrote in message
om...
> "Fred Marshall" > wrote in message
> >...
>> Make sure that the ME computer doesn't have NetBEUI or IPX installed
>> (network protocols).
>> If it does, get rid of them on all the computers.
>> TCP/IP is not only "enough" it is often necessary that it be "alone".
>>
>> You must have the same protocol working for file sharing, etc.
>> From experience, I believe that installing NetBEUI on an ME machine (that
>> already has TCP/IP) will cause an XP machine with only TCP/IP installed
>> to
>> disappear from the ME machine's network neighborhood. It's as if NetBEUI
>> has taken priority for being the protocol of choice and, since it doesn't
>> exist on the XP machine, can't share.
>> Removing NetBEUI is much preferable to having it installed all over the
>> place.
>>
>> Fred
>>
>> "jhebron" > wrote in message
>> news:fz0ad.363941$Fg5.194989@attbi_s53...
>> >I am running ME and XP and I can't get them to share files. I am
>> >running a
>> > Linysys cable modem and Linksys router. I can get the Internet on both
>> > computers no problem, they just wont see each other to share files and
>> > printers. Is the firewall in XP Service Pak 2 stopping them from
>> > anything.
>> > I also have Norton Security and Anti-virus on each computer. Any help
>> > would
>> > be greatly appreciated.
>> >
>> >
>
>
> I noticed no one mentioned the workgroup names on your network ideally
> should be the same. Also enable netbios over TCP-IP on the XP box.
> The Win ME workgroup name change can be done by rt clicking on network
> places, select properties then identification. WinXP is similar ,
> just click on the network ID button and you will find where to change
> the workgp name. To enable Netbios on the XP box get into control
> panel - select network, rt click on LAN connection , click on TCP-IP
> - select properties. click the ADVANCED button select the WINS tab.
> Near the bottom of this window is a tick to enable netbios.
>
> Good luck
>